Also at NRO, Jonah Goldberg talks some sense:

But Saddam — duh — is guilty. We know this. Just as a rapist deserves punishment even if the cop who nabs him is crooked, Saddam would still be deserving of an ugly end even if this had been the imperialistic-war-for-oil its critics claim. And, the only reason to delay his just desserts with a long, drawn-out trial is if such a spectacle will help the Iraqis. Fairness to Saddam would require hot pokers, not free lawyers.

A second wellspring of idiocy will come from those who demand that the United States "leave Iraq to the Iraqis" as soon as possible but who would also deny the Iraqis the fundamental sovereignty to try their oppressor. Which is it? Should the Iraqis have self-rule, or not? You cannot cherry-pick. In Brussels it may seem rational that a nation can maintain its sovereignty while ceding authority on everything but garbage collection to a foreign authority. But sovereignty means something else to the rest of us. Unlike the Nazis victims, Saddam's were mostly his own countrymen. Why should French or Russian judges decide the man's fate, when their governments didn't even want him deposed?

He's right about the stupid things that'll be said concerning a Saddam trial. I for one can't wait.